Secularism's Drones 'Sting' Brit Hume

“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very open question… the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist, I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be: ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'”

As an avid golfer, Christian man, and therefore a witness to the historic fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Mr. Hume clearly offered his message in good faith with honest concern for both Tiger’s future and for that of his family, friends, fans and business associates.

Sadly however, some drones of Secularism have reflexively stomped on their Political Correctness brakes; stinging at Mr. Hume with personal demonization, as if he’d somehow committed a sin against their totalitarian faith:

Keith Olbermann: “This crosses that principle [of keeping] religious advocacy out of public life, since, you know, the worst examples of that are jihadists, not to mention, you know, guys who don’t know their own religions or somebody else’s religion, like Brit Hume.”

Dan Savage: “Whenever we have a discussion in our country about jihadism and radical Muslims, you always hear, ‘where are the moderate voices? Where are the moderate Muslims? Why don’t they speak up?’ Where are the moderate Liberal Progressive Christians when something like this happens?… American Christianity’s been hijacked by the lunatics [including] people like Brit Hume.”

Comparing Christians that preach the Word to actual lunatic jihadists whose sole mission is to kill those who are non believers is beyond reprehensible. It’s almost as if they want make Mr. Hume an ‘Un-person’.

Forgiving all that for now as merely clumsy bombast, their point — and others’ like Tom Shales is clearly to intimidate Americans. It is to thwart and punish people who speak publicly in Jesus’ name. It is to force people into adhering to Secularism’s unwritten rulebook and principles, not the Bible or First Amendment — whither the Free Exercise Clause?

Remember the uproar in the Ivory Towers when candidate George W. Bush dared to claim that his favorite philosopher was Christ? Here, there, samey-same.

But, Secularism is not an impartial philosophy, it is an ardent competitor in the arena of ideas, and must be treated accordingly.

Hunter Baker defines Secularism as“a radical concept that involves the privatization of religious belief: [i.e.] when we are together in the public square, if we are ‘virtuous and civil’ then we will not speak of religion at all, we will confine it to our private lives and presumably – many elites believe – when we do that, religious belief will eventually disappear.”

From their scornful pedestals, Secularism’s faithful entitle themselves to preach intolerance towards varying viewpoints as a means to stifle civil public discourse into one party rule.

Mr. Savage scolds, “we’ve got to stop, we’ve got to deescalate this rhetoric and the rhetorical war pitting one religion against another religion,” yet his radical rhetoric is self-inoculated because he somehow believes his secular faith to be the referee.

Mr. Olbermann smarts, “is it not in the interest of people of faith to avoid this kind of public proselytizing, I mean, the smart ones get that it just makes them look bad no matter what the thought might be?”

How smart is that, really?

Perhaps when Messrs. Olbermann, Savage et al. next gaze in their mirrors, they’ll realize their vulgar jihadist comparisons and smug rhetorical hypocrisies are both illogical, and utterly self-defeating.

How did America arrive at the disgraceful crossroad where “Elton Trueblood’s Cut Flower Civilization thesis may well be in danger of fully manifesting itself”?